Slashdot Mirror
US Appeals Court Won't Rehear 'Net Neutrality' Challenge (reuters.com)
A federal appeals court on Monday declined to rehear a challenge to the Obama administration's landmark "net neutrality" rules requiring internet providers to guarantee equal access to all websites. From a report: The decision by the full appeals court in Washington not to reconsider a three-judge panel's decision that upheld the ruling comes days after Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai proposed to undo the 2015 net neutrality that reclassified internet providers like public utilities. The 2015 order bars internet providers from blocking, throttling or giving "fast lanes" to some websites. Pai has proposed reversing the reclassification and scrapping internet conduct standards, and has asked for comment on whether the FCC can or should retain any of the rules barring blocking, throttling or "fast lanes." Judge Sri Srinivasan said in a written opinion reviewing the decision "would be particularly unwarranted at this point in light of the uncertainty surrounding the fate of the FCC's order."
Even though it's certain that they'll keep pushing, if confirmed and true, at least this is a welcome respite from the otherwise monotonous unchallenged attempts at repealing most everything that was enacted in the public's interest during the previous administration's tenure.
One could reasonably make the case that TCP/IP was not designed to elevate one customer's packets over another. Application layer protocols (video + voice over web and email) certainly, but even then, the original intent was to set those priorities for each user's own network.
When consumers purchase "Internet access" (for home use or a commercial server farm), they expect to have equal access to all of it, subject to the traditional limitations of how much bandwidth the other side has purchased, how many hops it takes to efficiently route the traffic, and any weak spots along the way. Deliberately degrading certain destinations (the "slow lane") and still calling the service "Internet" is IMHO selling an adulterated product, just as a product labelled "ground beef" is expected to be made from beef instead of soy.
Hmmm...I'm not sure fans of net neutrality won anything here. I think the court basically said, "who cares about the legal challenge to Obama's rule, since Obama's rule is dead man walking anyway." From TFA:
>> Judge Sri Srinivasan said in a written opinion reviewing the decision "would be particularly unwarranted at this point in light of the uncertainty surrounding the fate of the FCC’s order." The FCC is set to hold an initial vote on May 18 on Pai's proposal but Srinivasan questioned why the full court should review "the validity of a rule that the agency had already slated for replacement."
What is this bookstore thing you refer to? Can you explain it in a car analogy?
WTB [sig], PST!!!
...suck it Comcast and AT&T.
We'll make great pets
On this logic, So-And-So can talk loudly about changing a law, and the courts will treat said law as toxic and not even hear a challenge, as said law is "on its way out" Seems legit.
1. To hell with income tax!
2. Raise income tax 50%.
3. Laugh as courts refuse to hear challenges to my new tax as its on its way out anyway....
4. Profit....
5. Repeat.
Context matters in this instance, and in most of the political articles on Slashdot.
The net neutrality law was a standout overreach by one department, essentially making up regulations that are outside the purview of that department. If this is allowed to continue we'd have lots of other departments declaring themselves the regulator of fact of anything and everything and a mishmash of ill-considered, overreaching, and contradictory laws.
As an example of this, the FAA decided that they were the regulator of fact for (commercial, toy) drones, and then essentially banned them outright. After great public outcry and 5 years, they instituted draconian rules that include intrusive registration and unnecessary regulation, the vast majority of which has nothing whatsoever to do with aircraft.
DHS decided they were the regulator of fact for model rocketry, and effectively banned the hobby for several years. DEA has decided that they are the regulator of fact for home chemistry sets, and uses extra-legal methods to enforce it. (Such as the gentleman making water-safe drinking straws containing Iodine, who had to go out of business after the DEA "asked" all his suppliers to stop selling him iodine.)
Now, you can argue that having a bad law is better than no law, but it's not 100% black-and-white here. We really do need to stop government from reaching into everyone's lives and making draconian rules.
Argue for a *better* law, argue for multiple providers, argue for the correct department to handle ir, argue to fix the issue by other means (such as competition). Point out that cities charge money for pole access, make exclusionary deals with providers, and get all sorts of kickbacks.
Net neutrality is a good thing, so let's fix it rather than complain about narrowly-defined aspects.